Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is met elsewhere; the description adds genuinely new behavioral content by detailing the categories and per-friend data returned, including the volatile 'is on the field now / which hole' field. It does not mention volume limits, ordering, or whether unauthenticated calls fail, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource, with every clause contributing a distinct returned data category rather than filler. The first sentence is a very long run-on enumeration, and the description is written in Spanish while the tool name and schema are English, which adds slight parsing friction but no wasted content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly across all six result categories plus the id contract. Gaps remain around exact response shape (field names, nesting, empty-state behavior, ordering or limits) that would matter for a read tool returning a composite payload.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond implying the player is implicit from the session context. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear specific resource ('«Tus amigos» del jugador en Morris Golf') and then enumerates the exact contents: accepted friends with handicap, live on-course status and hole, last round, rounds played together, plus pending requests in both directions, suggestions and license-holding guests without accounts. A reader can distinguish this from siblings like get_connections or list_regular_partners without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It never says 'use this instead of X', but it does give concrete routing context by naming the four tools that consume the returned ids (accept_friend_request, remove_friend, get_friend_live_round, add_party_player), which tells an agent this is the lookup step preceding those actions. What's missing is any exclusion, e.g. when to prefer list_regular_partners or get_connections for partner-history style queries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.